News:

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!We hope you had a blessed Pascha and Bright Week. The OCNet Forum is operating in “Beta Mode” due to a major systems upgrade. A maintenance window is currently in effect and users should expect downtime starting at 0300 EDT on Friday the 24th of May.

Are you suggesting that there were NO changes made to the Creed after the Third General Council, except for the filioque?

Sometimes our intelligence has to be informed by reality.

I'm sorry, but could you clarify the changes in the Symbol of the Faith after this time which you are referring to?

Here is what we have from Ephesus:

Quote

Definition of the faith at Nicaea [6th session 22 July 431]

The synod of Nicaea produced this creed: We believe ... [the Nicene Creed follows]

It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.

1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea. 2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised. 3. In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.

There was no mention at all of the text from the first Council of Constantinople so we need to consider the following and begin to moderate our assertions about this Creed our ours and how it must never be changed.

Scholars find difficulties with the creed attributed to the council of Constantinople. Some say that the council composed a new creed. But no mention is made of this creed by ancient witnesses until the council of Chalcedon; and the council of Constantinople was said simply to have endorsed the faith of Nicaea, with a few additions on the holy Spirit to refute the Pneumatomachian heresy. Moreover, if the latter tradition is accepted, an explanation must be given of why the first two articles of the so-called Constantinopolitan creed differ considerably from the Nicene creed.

It was J. Lebon, followed by J. N. D. Kelly and A. M. Ritter, who worked at the solution of this problem. Lebon said that the Nicene creed, especially since it was adapted to use at baptism, had taken on a number of forms. It was one of these which was endorsed at the council of Constantinople and developed by additions concerning the holy Spirit. All the forms, altered to some extent or other, were described by a common title as "the Nicene faith". Then the council of Chalcedon mentioned the council of Constantinople as the immediate source of one of them, marked it out by a special name "the faith of the 150 fathers", which from that time onwards became its widely known title, and quoted it alongside the original simple form of the Nicene creed. The Greek text of the Constantinopolitan creed, which is printed below, is taken from the acts of the council of Chalcedon.

Mary, the Church more universally affirmed the Creed of Constantinople shortly thereafter and after that there was certainty in its content with no modification until the filioque.

Oh that may well be true, however the Creed that was referenced at Ephesus was the Creed from Nicaea and there's clearly evidence that very very strongly suggests that there were exceptionally substantial changes made to more than one version after Ephesus.

So the idea that the west added filioque to a Latin verb phrase that was already different from the exclusivity of the meaning of the Greek verb is hardly a shocking development, taken in context, and given the fact that the Church was NEVER one in the sense that every jot and tittle of doctrine or theology was identical, within territories or between them.

Indicating that the standards of parity that are set today by many Orthodox believers are capricious and do not grow organically out of the lived experiences of the Church...as the Creed did, for example.

Is there anything which you 'kept' from Orthodoxy, i.e. beliefs/non-conflicting-doctrines, traditions, prayers, chokti, etc?

Or are you full up Roman Catholic again? Or did you ever really find a difference?

I continue to ask for the prayers of several Saints who I only became devoted to whilst I was Orthodox. St Isaac the Syrian, and to a lesser extent St Seraphim of Sarov. I still pray the Jesus prayer and like to pray using my prayer rope. In my personal prayers in the evening, I often use formulas which I memorized when I was Orthodox, and when I am at Mass I often pray what I can remember of the Orthodox pre-Eucharist prayers, "I believe Lord and I confess" etc (as fragmented parts of my personal pre-Communion meditation). I also really like Orthodox hesychastic spirituality, and I hope to read more of the Philokalia and eventually put its methods into practice. I like Byzantine-style icons and still have a few.

Is there anything which you 'kept' from Orthodoxy, i.e. beliefs/non-conflicting-doctrines, traditions, prayers, chokti, etc?

Or are you full up Roman Catholic again? Or did you ever really find a difference?

I continue to ask for the prayers of several Saints who I only became devoted to whilst I was Orthodox. St Isaac the Syrian, and to a lesser extent St Seraphim of Sarov. I still pray the Jesus prayer and like to pray using my prayer rope. In my personal prayers in the evening, I often use formulas which I memorized when I was Orthodox, and when I am at Mass I often pray what I can remember of the Orthodox pre-Eucharist prayers, "I believe Lord and I confess" etc (as fragmented parts of my personal pre-Communion meditation). I also really like Orthodox hesychastic spirituality, and I hope to read more of the Philokalia and eventually put its methods into practice. I like Byzantine-style icons and still have a few.

Do you have a byzantine-rite church in your area? If not, would you prefer to attend there if you had the option? If yes, why do you still prefer the latin rite?

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic.

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic.

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic.

I hear you, brother. The parish I attend celebrates the Latin Mass with Gregorian chant. It leaves me in awe. (not saying it's better than the Eastern liturgy, just that I personally experience something rather profound every time I attend)

« Last Edit: October 19, 2010, 04:46:56 PM by ChristusDominus »

Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

For me, (and I know this is subjective), there is nothing more beautiful than liturgical chant.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Yes, the Byzantine chant is what drew me into the Byzantine Catholic church (well, that and my husband! ), but I do love and miss the Gregorian chant as well.

Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant? That might be the tipping point for me!

I would be extremely surprised if any of them did.

I think it'd be cool if Orthodoxy had it's own "Gregorian" chant... like if someone stood around chanting the Orations and Letters of St. Gregory the Theologian or something. "That... which... is... not... assumed... is... not... healed..."

Yes, the Byzantine chant is what drew me into the Byzantine Catholic church (well, that and my husband! ), but I do love and miss the Gregorian chant as well.

Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant? That might be the tipping point for me!

I would be extremely surprised if any of them did.

Why? What would make you think that? I'm sure many, if not most of them do. That is the ideal style of chanting for them to use.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Yes, the Byzantine chant is what drew me into the Byzantine Catholic church (well, that and my husband! ), but I do love and miss the Gregorian chant as well.Do WRO churches use Gregorian chant? That might be the tipping point for me!

I would be extremely surprised if any of them did.

Why? What would make you think that? I'm sure many, if not most of them do. That is the ideal style of chanting for them to use.In Christ,Andrew

Yes, in the Orthodox "WR parishes," there are some that are Gregorian and some that are Anglican. The Gregorian parishes use Gregorian chant.

I remember while still Catholic, while standing in line on Saturday to go to confession our pastor would play "Chant" albums over the intercom. It was very moving and very relaxing; also nice to listen to while doing penance after confession.

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

It's nice the prayers include the whole trinity and not just Father...prayer...we ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ amen... sabellianism is gone.

Actually this styling shows the antiquity of many of the Roman Rite prayers. Since Rome was unaffected by most of the Eastern heresies, Ariansim being the big exception, it did not Trinitize (I should copyright that one) its prayers as the Eastern Churches did.

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic.

I hear you, brother. The parish I attend celebrates the Latin Mass with Gregorian chant. It leaves me in awe. (not saying it's better than the Eastern liturgy, just that I personally experience something rather profound every time I attend)

The Tridentine Latin Mass is very beautiful and profound. I felt drawn in that direction somewhat, but ultimately found Carpatho-Russian (prostopinije), Ukrainian, Serbian and Romanian chant closer to my heart.

Yes, there are Byzantine rite churches in my area, I am good friends with the local Russian Greek-Catholic priest and I plan to visit his parish soon. However, I would much rather attend a Latin rite church. I am currently very happy with the Extraordinary Form parish I attend. Gregorian chant is angelic.

I hear you, brother. The parish I attend celebrates the Latin Mass with Gregorian chant. It leaves me in awe. (not saying it's better than the Eastern liturgy, just that I personally experience something rather profound every time I attend)

The Tridentine Latin Mass is very beautiful and profound. I felt drawn in that direction somewhat, but ultimately found Carpatho-Russian (prostopinije), Ukrainian, Serbian and Romanian chant closer to my heart.

God works in mysterious ways. But I'll have you know that God speaks Latin....I'm kidding

Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

We've moved away from the OP. If you want to discuss how the council of Chalcedon is heretical or not, please start a new thread. If you want to discuss the differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic ecclesiology, please start another thread.

If you are Eastern or Oriental Orthodox and were formerly Roman or Eastern Catholic, please feel free to contribute to this thread and keep it going.

Thank you.

-SchultzOrthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I have been an Orthodox Christian for 14 years now. Ever since my conversion to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, I have been so thankful to God. Within the RCC, there was always discontent and constant change. Of course, at that time Cardinal Mahony stressed that there should be constant "revolution" in the liturgy, but that shook my faith to the core.

However, within Orthodoxy, I found stability, and with stability, my faith blossomed.

Glory to Jesus Christ.Glory forever.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

I have been an Orthodox Christian for 14 years now. Ever since my conversion to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, I have been so thankful to God. Within the RCC, there was always discontent and constant change. Of course, at that time Cardinal Mahony stressed that there should be constant "revolution" in the liturgy, but that shook my faith to the core.

However, within Orthodoxy, I found stability, and with stability, my faith blossomed.

Glory to Jesus Christ.Glory forever.

Yes, this stability and reassurance thereof is very important to alot of people. Thanks for your input.

I am much happier since I left the Orthodox Church, to be honest. I feel closer to God and I feel that my sacramental relationship with God is better facilitated by Catholicism.

Interesting. Would you be willing to share a few more details about your experiences and how you feel Catholicism improves your relationship? If you would rather not share it on the public forum you can pm me if you like.

I often felt quite uncomfortable in Orthodoxy. So much of the talk, in sermons and in general parish fellowship, was about how much better Orthodoxy is compared to all other denominations. The anti-Catholic attitudes were intense and disgusting.

Furthermore, I disliked how the parish I attended, and every other parish, was just an ethnic community. I felt out of place and I found it tedious having to explain why I was coming to an Orthodox parish when ethnically I don’t belong there.

I also had a few problems in regards to theology and practice in Orthodoxy.

First of all, Catholicism is far better at facilitating my sacramental relationship with God. Confession is available every day in the Catholic Cathedral and some churches here, and weekly at all other Catholic parishes. In comparison, at my Orthodox parish confession was only available once per year, and it was conducted without any privacy at all… and most people didn’t even go. When I converted to Orthodoxy I had to make a confession, and some of the ‘cradle’ members of the parish commented that they had never been to confession in their lives. I believe that I should be going to confession before I partake of the Eucharist – Catholicism facilitates this, Orthodoxy doesn’t.

There’s also the problem of the Liturgy only being on Sundays in most Orthodox parishes. As a Catholic now I can receive the Eucharist every day. I also love Eucharistic adoration, the Rosary, the Summa Theologia, the Tridentine Mass and many Catholic saints whom the Orthodox Church refuses to recognise.

Now, as a Catholic, I feel that my relationship with God is stronger because I can more regularly go to confession, receive communion, and I can pray in groups where I am accepted without any awkwardness. It was always awkward going into Orthodox parishes because I am obviously not of their ethnic backgroup. Also, most people at the various Orthodox parishes were only their for family or cultural reasons… I did not meet any young people, at all, who were attending Liturgy independently of their parents. They only went to church if their parents dragged them along. By comparison, in the Catholic Church there are many young people who are there for their own sake, independently of their parents. It’s nice to meet other young people who are interested in religion and God on a serious level.

Many Easterners criticised Catholicism as being far too ‘scholastic.’ That really only applies to the Dominicans and their spirituality and theology. The spirituality and theology of the Carmelites is very contemplative and hesychastic. The Franciscans have their own brand of spirituality as well. The Orthodox Church insists that there is only one way of thinking and worshipping and pursuing a relationship with the Trinity, and anything else is heretical. The Catholic Church is mature enough to appreciate that there are different valid ways to approach God, in terms of our theology and our spirituality. I like this ‘unity in diversity’ that is present in Catholicism. I certainly did not see anything like it in the Orthodox Church.

Interesting perspective. I happened to be attracted to Orthodoxy, in part, because it was culturally relevant. I felt the [Latin] Catholic parishes I attended were sterile, and I never felt a part. But when I started attending Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox parishes, there was a stronger sense of community and culture that attracted me. I'm a good part Slavic, so the cultural things hit a chord.

The whole Eucharistic adoration thing never really caught on with me, and I found the spiritualities either overly sentimental or rationalistic. When I started becoming more educated in the Catholic faith, I became especially attracted to the early Church Fathers. When I started reading about the Orthodox saints of modern times, I saw a definite mind-heart connection between them.

The Tridentine Latin Mass of the Latin Church is beautiful, but other than that, I now feel rather distanced from all the other stuff that goes on in the Latin Church. I read your post and think that my experience was rather in reverse. I don't have any serious regrets about becoming Orthodox. I have confidence now in teaching that I did not have as a Catholic. I no longer struggle with the doctrinal debates of the West. I experience dryness and very rough times, but even through this, it does not lead me to doubt the truths of Orthodoxy.

Interesting perspective. I happened to be attracted to Orthodoxy, in part, because it was culturally relevant. I felt the [Latin] Catholic parishes I attended were sterile, and I never felt a part. But when I started attending Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox parishes, there was a stronger sense of community and culture that attracted me. I'm a good part Slavic, so the cultural things hit a chord.

The whole Eucharistic adoration thing never really caught on with me, and I found the spiritualities either overly sentimental or rationalistic. When I started becoming more educated in the Catholic faith, I became especially attracted to the early Church Fathers. When I started reading about the Orthodox saints of modern times, I saw a definite mind-heart connection between them.

The Tridentine Latin Mass of the Latin Church is beautiful, but other than that, I now feel rather distanced from all the other stuff that goes on in the Latin Church. I read your post and think that my experience was rather in reverse. I don't have any serious regrets about becoming Orthodox. I have confidence now in teaching that I did not have as a Catholic. I no longer struggle with the doctrinal debates of the West. I experience dryness and very rough times, but even through this, it does not lead me to doubt the truths of Orthodoxy.

I have learned much through this forum and the more I learned about Church history and the Christian faith in general, I eventually lost my faith.

Fwiw, while it wasn't due (primarily) to anything I read online, I am with you regarding the idea that learning more and more about Christian history and the Christian faith is what led me to losing faith. Or, as my priest and wife put it at the time, I was reading too much for my own good

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge. in this day and age, with widespread literacy, access to information, the internet, etc. it's easy to overwhelm oneself. intellectual curiosity and discourse are great, but i think intellectual pride is underestimated, especially considering one could read the story of the Fall as being precipitated by it.

sola scriptura is fundamentally intellectual pride.

many of the heresies and schisms are essentially academic/intellectual disputes.

many of the stories of people who fall away from faith are based upon faith in their own intellect- "if i can't understand it, it must not be true".

i'm not saying anything personal to anyone, but i do think that intellectual pride is not discussed very much.

to be clear- reading, understanding and using our intellect are all great - but i just don't think people are inclined to guard their intellect like they perhaps are with other things.

I struggled with Roman Catholicism for years, i was brought up in it. I saw it change little by little. In the end my cynicism about the RC church , its cover up of paedophilia, its obsession with the institition and its importance over the true teachings of Christ began to undermine my faith itself...Ask any Roman catholic and they will express at the very least a sense of disappointment about the where the church has gone. I encountered Orthodoxy over a number of years and gradually my prejudices peeled away...Most importantly Orthodoxy helped to restore my faith.... Roman catholicism had slowly but surely undermined my faith to the point that the secular world seemed to be offering an attraction which thanks to orthodoxy I see for what it is. I believe Satan entered and corrupted Roman catholicism and in so doing achieved an enormous victory. I was abused at the age of 13 by a Roman catholic priest, the response of the RC church was to transfer him to a girls school where he abused two girls, he was then 'retired' and as far as I know still wears the garb of the priest....Dont talk to me about the Holy roman catholic church....

Logged

"Nothing troubles the man who is given over to the will of God.....He knows that the Lord in His mercy is solicitous for us.....But the proud and the self-willed do not want to surrender to God's will.." St Siluan the Athonite

I struggled with Roman Catholicism for years, i was brought up in it. I saw it change little by little. In the end my cynicism about the RC church , its cover up of paedophilia, its obsession with the institition and its importance over the true teachings of Christ began to undermine my faith itself...Ask any Roman catholic and they will express at the very least a sense of disappointment about the where the church has gone. I encountered Orthodoxy over a number of years and gradually my prejudices peeled away...Most importantly Orthodoxy helped to restore my faith.... Roman catholicism had slowly but surely undermined my faith to the point that the secular world seemed to be offering an attraction which thanks to orthodoxy I see for what it is. I believe Satan entered and corrupted Roman catholicism and in so doing achieved an enormous victory. I was abused at the age of 13 by a Roman catholic priest, the response of the RC church was to transfer him to a girls school where he abused two girls, he was then 'retired' and as far as I know still wears the garb of the priest....Dont talk to me about the Holy roman catholic church....

Becoming Orthodox has also restored my faith in Christ. And struggling with my sinfulness has become easier. The prayers and fastings, the feast days, the Divine Liturgy, and the icons all help.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge.

Actually, it was not the tree of knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you remember that after each day of creation we have "And God saw that it was good", and that the Garden and all creation was explicitly described as being *good*, *everything* that you have known so far is good. What is the novelty the tree would bring? Just knowing evil. Now, it's not intellectual knowledge of evil, knowing "about it". It was knowing what it is to be like it. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they knew evil like putting your hand in fire, not having lessons about the physics of it. In a sense they became, at least partially, evil. And that is what the fall is about, either for humans or for angels: becoming evil.

The commandment is still there and there are a lot of "serpents" today who still say you have to experience everything to have a real "knowledge" of the world. That's why so many people go into drugs and other bad things. They feel they have to have this existential knowledge of it, they have to feel it in their guts. What the lesson of Eden teaches us is that, no, you don't have to burn your own leg on fire to "know" fire. It's funny that the actual anti-intellectual act is that of *eating* the fruit, thus refusing to know evil just with the mind and diving into the existential experience. Now, we have to do the opposite way by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to go the opposite way: to know God existentially and evil just intellectually.

« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 02:16:30 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge.

Actually, it was not the tree of knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you remember that after each day of creation we have "And God saw that it was good", and that the Garden and all creation was explicitly described as being *good*, *everything* that you have known so far is good. What is the novelty the tree would bring? Just knowing evil. Now, it's not intellectual knowledge of evil, knowing "about it". It was knowing what it is to be like it. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they knew evil like putting your hand in fire, not having lessons about the physics of it. In a sense they became, at least partially, evil. And that is what the fall is about, either for humans or for angels: becoming evil.

The commandment is still there and there are a lot of "serpents" today who still say you have to experience everything to have a real "knowledge" of the world. That's why so many people go into drugs and other bad things. They feel they have to have this existential knowledge of it, they have to feel it in their guts. What the lesson of Eden teaches us is that, no, you don't have to burn your own leg on fire to "know" fire. It's funny that the actual anti-intellectual act is that of *eating* the fruit, thus refusing to know evil just with the mind and diving into the existential experience. Now, we have to do the opposite way by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to go the opposite way: to know God existentially and evil just intellectually.

actually, it depends on the translation and "tree of knowledge " is one of the options. there is some discussion/scholarship on this and "tree of conscience", "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and other options have support ("tree of life"):

I thought of this thread when today I read the conversion story provided below. This is a very moving story of a French Roman Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy at an advanced age, after many years of marriage to an Orthodox woman, and after just as many years of opposing such a conversion. This man was received into the Orthodox Church by baptism, and following his Orthodox baptism he experienced Divine Grace as he never before did as a pious Roman Catholic. The story beautifully describes the man's life after baptism and the circumstances surrounding his repose. Though brief, this is one of the best conversion stories I have read:

I thought of this thread when today I read the conversion story provided below. This is a very moving story of a French Roman Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy at an advanced age, after many years of marriage to an Orthodox woman, and after just as many years of opposing such a conversion. This man was received into the Orthodox Church by baptism, and following his Orthodox baptism he experienced Divine Grace as he never before did as a pious Roman Catholic. The story beautifully describes the man's life after baptism and the circumstances surrounding his repose. Though brief, this is one of the best conversion stories I have read:

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge.

Actually, it was not the tree of knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you remember that after each day of creation we have "And God saw that it was good", and that the Garden and all creation was explicitly described as being *good*, *everything* that you have known so far is good. What is the novelty the tree would bring? Just knowing evil. Now, it's not intellectual knowledge of evil, knowing "about it". It was knowing what it is to be like it. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they knew evil like putting your hand in fire, not having lessons about the physics of it. In a sense they became, at least partially, evil. And that is what the fall is about, either for humans or for angels: becoming evil.

The commandment is still there and there are a lot of "serpents" today who still say you have to experience everything to have a real "knowledge" of the world. That's why so many people go into drugs and other bad things. They feel they have to have this existential knowledge of it, they have to feel it in their guts. What the lesson of Eden teaches us is that, no, you don't have to burn your own leg on fire to "know" fire. It's funny that the actual anti-intellectual act is that of *eating* the fruit, thus refusing to know evil just with the mind and diving into the existential experience. Now, we have to do the opposite way by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to go the opposite way: to know God existentially and evil just intellectually.

actually, it depends on the translation and "tree of knowledge " is one of the options. there is some discussion/scholarship on this and "tree of conscience", "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and other options have support ("tree of life"):

so my point still remains, although you make some valuable points as well.

Android,

I read the translation issues in the wikipedia article and, as a professional traslator, I can guarantee to you that the arguments are very weak.

To claim that "good and evil" is a merism goes against all the exegetical interpretations in the last 3 thousand years. It does not make literary sense in that particular story and simply servers the bias of a particular group, in this case, of those who think the Church is anti-knowledge. It is a petition of principle, a falacy of reasoning in which the conclusion intended is assumed as the very principle of investigation. Basically "because we *know* the church is anti-knowledge we interpret that passage is anti-knowledge which in turn proves she is anti-knowledge".

This understanding of the tree being the tree of knowledge simply makes no sense exegetically, linguistically, in terms of literary criticism or historically.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

it is telling indeed that the forbidden tree in the garden was the tree of knowledge.

Actually, it was not the tree of knowledge. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you remember that after each day of creation we have "And God saw that it was good", and that the Garden and all creation was explicitly described as being *good*, *everything* that you have known so far is good. What is the novelty the tree would bring? Just knowing evil. Now, it's not intellectual knowledge of evil, knowing "about it". It was knowing what it is to be like it. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they knew evil like putting your hand in fire, not having lessons about the physics of it. In a sense they became, at least partially, evil. And that is what the fall is about, either for humans or for angels: becoming evil.

The commandment is still there and there are a lot of "serpents" today who still say you have to experience everything to have a real "knowledge" of the world. That's why so many people go into drugs and other bad things. They feel they have to have this existential knowledge of it, they have to feel it in their guts. What the lesson of Eden teaches us is that, no, you don't have to burn your own leg on fire to "know" fire. It's funny that the actual anti-intellectual act is that of *eating* the fruit, thus refusing to know evil just with the mind and diving into the existential experience. Now, we have to do the opposite way by eating the fruit of the Tree of Life, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, to go the opposite way: to know God existentially and evil just intellectually.

actually, it depends on the translation and "tree of knowledge " is one of the options. there is some discussion/scholarship on this and "tree of conscience", "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and other options have support ("tree of life"):

so my point still remains, although you make some valuable points as well.

Android,

I read the translation issues in the wikipedia article and, as a professional traslator, I can guarantee to you that the arguments are very weak.

To claim that "good and evil" is a merism goes against all the exegetical interpretations in the last 3 thousand years. It does not make literary sense in that particular story and simply servers the bias of a particular group, in this case, of those who think the Church is anti-knowledge. It is a petition of principle, a falacy of reasoning in which the conclusion intended is assumed as the very principle of investigation. Basically "because we *know* the church is anti-knowledge we interpret that passage is anti-knowledge which in turn proves she is anti-knowledge".

This understanding of the tree being the tree of knowledge simply makes no sense exegetically, linguistically, in terms of literary criticism or historically.

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

As I write this I have been Orthodox 20 years. I was raised a Calvinist Presbyterian. I knew that I was predestined for Hell. I liked girls and movies. I got into drugs and alcohol to speed the process of getting to Hell. Later I got into a 12 Step Program I had trouble believing in a merciful God and a loving God. I went to an Anglican Church, and met a Priest who reminded me that ''God so loved the world" and that I was a part of that world that God so loved. I slowly became more Catholic and with the ordination of women to the Priesthood I left the Anglican Communion. At first I tried the Roman Catholic Church, but could not accept Roman Catholic Doctrine about Papal Supremacy. I went to an Orthodox Church, and my questions were answered and others posed. Orthodoxy to me is an experience. For the first time I experience the walk of being a Christian.

We don't like the wording of the dogma which leaves open doors for further developments such as the belief that the Theotokos never really died, etc.

I have studied Munificentissimus Deus (Pius XII's 1950 bull that dogmatically defined the Immaculate Conception) in great detail. Michal, you are quite right that the ambiguity of document _could_ lead one to believe that Our Lady did not die. However, it is perfectly "acceptable" for a Catholic to believe in the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Dormition/Assumption. Personally, I believe as the Orthodox do, that she indeed died as she is mortal. Most educated orthodox Catholics I know agree. Our Lady's mortality, however, does not detract from all the veneration due to her as Theotokos/Genetrix Dei/Deipara etc.

I am still a cradle Catholic, but I find myself contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy all the time. Roman Catholicism is in a dire sort nowadays, as most all here probably know. The Novus Ordo was an inexplicable move with disastrous consequences (why did Paul VI have to go there?). It's liturgy by academics, not liturgy by revelation. I only worship at the Extraordinary Form or at an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy. At the moment I attend the DL since I cannot get to a Latin Mass. I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western. I respect the Eastern spirituality deeply (especially the profound Eastern veneration and love of Our Lady), but I still feel as if I'm in exile.

The real reason why I have not converted is because I love the classical Roman liturgy, the Roman Canon, and the Latin language. Still, I am so distraught at what has happened to the Roman Church that I just want to flee. Something tells me, though, that the Roman Rite will indeed survive this tribulation and emerge again in its ancient form. We will not only survive, but emerge with a vigorous liturgical orthodoxy. This is our iconoclasm, 1300 years later. I must trust that the Church will learn that the academy and social sciences are works of human hands that will never supplant the glory of orthodox sacramentality. I just don't know why we westerners are being tested at this time of history.

We don't like the wording of the dogma which leaves open doors for further developments such as the belief that the Theotokos never really died, etc.

I have studied Munificentissimus Deus (Pius XII's 1950 bull that dogmatically defined the Immaculate Conception) in great detail. Michal, you are quite right that the ambiguity of document _could_ lead one to believe that Our Lady did not die. However, it is perfectly "acceptable" for a Catholic to believe in the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Dormition/Assumption. Personally, I believe as the Orthodox do, that she indeed died as she is mortal. Most educated orthodox Catholics I know agree. Our Lady's mortality, however, does not detract from all the veneration due to her as Theotokos/Genetrix Dei/Deipara etc.

I am still a cradle Catholic, but I find myself contemplating conversion to Orthodoxy all the time. Roman Catholicism is in a dire sort nowadays, as most all here probably know. The Novus Ordo was an inexplicable move with disastrous consequences (why did Paul VI have to go there?). It's liturgy by academics, not liturgy by revelation. I only worship at the Extraordinary Form or at an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy. At the moment I attend the DL since I cannot get to a Latin Mass. I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western. I respect the Eastern spirituality deeply (especially the profound Eastern veneration and love of Our Lady), but I still feel as if I'm in exile.

The real reason why I have not converted is because I love the classical Roman liturgy, the Roman Canon, and the Latin language. Still, I am so distraught at what has happened to the Roman Church that I just want to flee. Something tells me, though, that the Roman Rite will indeed survive this tribulation and emerge again in its ancient form. We will not only survive, but emerge with a vigorous liturgical orthodoxy. This is our iconoclasm, 1300 years later. I must trust that the Church will learn that the academy and social sciences are works of human hands that will never supplant the glory of orthodox sacramentality. I just don't know why we westerners are being tested at this time of history.

Is there a Western Rite Orthodox Church near you?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Not that I know of. Most Eastern Christians where I am are Ukrainians. Also, I have the impression that many "Western Rite Orthodox" churches are non-canonical or sketchy-canonical. I'm probably wrong. "non-canonical Roman Catholicism" (aka the SSPX) is very angry, anti-semitic, and just plain ugly. Hope that's not the case in the East. From what I understand, some Western Rite churches are under ROCOR. ROCOR is a bit too hardcore for me -- they've got some anger/bigotry issues also.

I believe that the Roman Rite rightfully resides under the authority of the Pope of Rome. The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions. There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home". An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt. Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy. Still, should he say the Mass? Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

I have no problem with the removal of the filioque or the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon. Those are non-issues.

I love the Divine Liturgy because it is, of course, the unbloody sacrifice and a historic orthodox liturgy, but my spirituality is still very western.

What do you mean by spirituality?

Quote

I respect the Eastern spirituality deeply (especially the profound Eastern veneration and love of Our Lady), but I still feel as if I'm in exile.

Join the club. Don't worry. It'll pass eventually. Even though the West might remain as your home but it is indeed possible to grow to feel content with Byzantine rite even though it might feel alien at first. That's what happened to me.

The Roman liturgy is not indigenous to Orthodox jurisdictions. There's something strange about removing the Roman liturgy from its jurisdictional "home". An Orthodox priest who says the Roman liturgy is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, without a doubt. Theoretically, an apostolic priest has the ability to say any apostolic liturgy. Still, should he say the Mass? Is it his charism to do so as a cleric of an Orthodox jurisdiction?

There's no such thing as local church's indigenous liturgy or charism of some specific rite. There are just churches and priests. All rites are part of the Tradition of the whole Church so any local church can implement any rite she deems necessary.

Quote

I have no problem with ... the addition of a Byzantine epiclesis to the Roman Canon. Those are non-issues.